Green Energy’s Soaring Costs Outweigh Projected Benefits for New England: Think Tank Report

A coalition of New England based think tanks released an extensive report Wednesday in collaboration with Always on Energy Research (AOER) detailing the costs and consequences associated with the rigorous clean energy policies being pursued by most state governments in the region, including Maine.

This report — The Staggering Costs of New England’s Green Energy Policies — was completed by Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF), the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy in New Hampshire, the Ethan Allen Institute in Vermont, the Fiscal Alliance Foundation in Massachusetts, Maine Policy Institute, Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, and Yankee Institute in Connecticut.

All New England states except New Hampshire have committed to reducing carbon emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050. If realized, the report explains that this would result in the region increasing the share of energy generated via renewable sources from 6 to 71 percent by 2050.

According to the study, this same time period is projected to see 106 percent increase in the demand for electricity in the region, driven primarily by the home heating and transportation sectors. Peak demand is also expected to shift from summer to winter by 2035.

[RELATED: Maine BEP Rejects Controversial EV Mandate]

In order to “decarbonize” the grid, ISO New England — the regional organization responsible for electric transmission in the area — estimates that about 97 gigawatts worth of utility-grade renewables would be necessary by 2050 should the government-backed carbon emissions goals be achieved, a massive increase over the currently-installed 4 gigawatts.

In other words, New England would need to build 25 times more solar panels, wind turbines, and other qualified renewable energy facilities in order to meet the decarbonization goal — if you take ISO New England’s projections at face value.

To meet the forecasted increase in demand, however, this study suggests that a whopping 225 gigawatts would be needed in reality, i.e. more than 50 times the level of renewable energy currently generated.

The report goes on to argue that, in order to achieve this more stable benchmark, 6,600 offshore wind turbines, more than 5,600 onshore wind turbines, and over 129 million solar panels—covering more than 200 square miles—would need to be constructed.

Based on the research done by these organizations, if only the 97 gigawatts ISO New England has indicated will be necessary are developed, the region can expect to experience rolling blackouts lasting as long as eighteen hours.

“The New England Decarbonization Plans will seriously undermine the reliability of the electric grid by making it more dependent on fluctuations in the weather,” the report states. “This dependency will end in blackouts. In contrast, the current grid maintains the reliability of New England’s electric grid at a much lower cost.”

In order to pursue the more reliable 225 gigawatt pathway, it would cost New England ratepayers a total of $815 billion through 2050, a figure roughly equal to half the region’s annual economic output.

Furthermore, on top of inflation-related increases, ratepayers could expect to see their electric rates double by 2050 compared to 2023 should New England states continue to pursue carbon emissions goals in this manner.

Should these states continue down their current path, the report estimates that New England families will see their electric bills rise by an average of $99 per year, with the cost for commercial businesses rising by $489 and for industrial customers by $5,280.

The $815 billion worth of expenses needed to develop a reasonably reliable renewable energy grid would lead to a cumulative cost of $51,914 per capita for New England residents by 2050.

The report goes on to break down this cumulative cost per state, indicating that Maine would bear a burden of about $69.3 billion by 2050.

Given the wind and solar output patterns exhibited in 2023, the think tanks argue in their report that the 225 gigawatts they project as necessary could still fall short of meeting the increased demand for electricity expected by 2050, potentially resulting in rolling blackouts during the winter months.

[RELATED: Heating Oil Use Declines 6% as Mainers Adopt Subsidized Electric Heat Pumps]

The study goes on to suggest that if New England state governments continue to pursue these types of rigorous green energy policies, economic growth will be restricted in the region, as businesses and households would be prevented from accessing efficient options for meeting their electricity needs.

During a press conference introducing the report, Ross Connolly of the AFPF referred to energy as the “lifeblood of the American economy,” underscoring the widespread importance of pursuing well thought out policies in this sector.

Concerning Maine specifically, the report details a policy signed into law by Gov. Janet Mills (D) in 2019 that increased the percentage of renewable energy utilities were required to sell from 40 percent by 2030 to 80 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.

The report goes on to explain, however, that in 2023 Gov. Mills announced she intended to reach the 100 percent mark ten years earlier than previously planned, hoping to achieve this goal as early as 2040.

In 2021, Maine became the first New England state to require state pensions to divest from fossil fuel companies. Similar legislation has also been introduced in Vermont, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Although backers of the divestment bill celebrated the outcome in Maine, it’s not clear how much the law has actually changed the composition of state pension investments.

[RELATED: Maine Pension Fund Will Continue Investing in Fossil Fuels Well Beyond 2026 Despite “Divestment” Law…]

The report argues that if states continue to divest their pension funds from non-renewable energy, companies “will struggle to build new and maintain old natural gas pipelines” due to a lack of financial investment.

“It’s time for policymakers in Maine and the region to understand there are real human and economic costs to their renewable energy agenda,” said Maine Policy Institute CEO Matthew Gagnon in a statement Wednesday.

“For a state like Maine, in a region like New England, it simply does not make sense to continue down this path when we account for such a minuscule amount of greenhouse gas emissions,” Gagnon said. “Doing so will cause serious hardship for working families and make our regional grid far less reliable.”

The think tanks also point out in their report that rolling blackouts would put vulnerable populations in danger, as the equipment necessary to maintain their health and well being requires electricity to be operational. Data shows that during blackouts, there are spikes in respiratory problems, kidney disease, and deaths.

“These policies, when fully explored, cannot be rationalized,” the groups argued in their report. “If New England’s net-zero policies are fully enacted, the region is likely to see a mass exodus of businesses and workers to other regions of the United States.”

“There is still time to alter course, to demand that the skyrocketing costs for such draconian policies be counted alongside their (meager) benefits,” the report suggested. “By doing so, we can return New England to the days when it successfully balanced environmental conservation and economic productivity.”

The think tanks go on to explain that while the policies currently being pursued by most New England state governments, except for New Hampshire’s, will lead to a reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits.

Using the Social Cost of Carbon figures as a reference point, the study demonstrates that the estimated costs associated with reducing carbon emissions were consistently higher than the financial harm resulting from the emissions themselves.

The groups go on to make several policy recommendations to address the concerns raised by the report, including reconsidering state-level emissions reduction goals in the context of reliability and affordability.

“Legislators should prioritize affordability and reliability before emissions reductions goals,” they said. “If emissions reduction goals cannot be reduced without compromising affordability and/or reliability of electricity, they should be abandoned.”

They also suggested lifting state nuclear moratoriums and allowing nuclear power to be counted toward states’ renewable energy goals.

Increasing transparency around purchase power agreements and requiring that details such as the expected impact on ratepayers be available to the public was also recommended.

In addition to this, it was suggested that it be made mandatory for investment fees be reported publicly so as to increase transparency around the costs and benefits associated with “higher-risk alternative investments.”

“In the end, the idea that New England can use policies based on net zero and [Environmental Social Governance] promises to heat and power the region is a dangerous and unserious proposition,” the report concluded.

Click Here to Read the Full Report

Disclosure: The Maine Wire is a project of the Maine Policy Institute, one of the New England think tanks that contributed to this study. No Maine Wire staff participated in the research or writing of this report.